Honestly, I don't get why WSJ tried to write the article in a way that tried to defend Apple and make Google the "villain," if you will, who demanded too much. Google has a dam* good product and it is their right to ask money (or other services) from Apple for its use on Apple's devices. Of course, we might never know what Google asked for in return for the use of its services... we can only guess from shady 3rd party reports like on WSJ... (yes, even an article on WSJ which cites "people" or "sources" doesn't constitute proof). But it doesn't seem fair to right away blame Google for being greedy when you don't even know the circumstances behind the deal, much less the deal itself.
Look, I don't like half of what Google does (including shamelessly tracking people to advertise or shamelessly diverting profits to offshore countries, etc), but you have to give it up to Google for making dam* good maps. I can't think of any other company who would've invested as much as Google did in creating Gmaps with Street View. I can only hope that Apple will throw in a couple of billion from its billions strong cash pile into Apple Maps and get us a good alternative. And for making that investment, Google has every right to sell it at a price it thinks is reasonable. It's just capitalism.
But not knowing the price they set, or the deals Google proposed is reason enough to not start blaming Google for the switch to Apple Maps. It's like blaming your friend because you read somewhere that your friend didn't pay you back, without feeling the need to verify that story somewhere else first.
